The dishonesty of creationists.

[tumbleweed41]

Every now and again one of those "weird" solutions turns out to be the right one. And nothing I posited invokes magic or supernatural causation. ET interference (one way or another) =/= "God/gods" did it.

MTF

As there is currently no evidence for Extra Terrestrial interference, especially in an "intelligent design" scenario, it is simply speculation.
I will withdraw the pseudo-scientific as long as crop circles and cattle mutilations are not brought up.

 

[ragordon168]

Such as the banana being designed to fit in the human hand, with a convenient pull tab.
.

one thing that has always fasinated me is how humans and animals have learned what is good to eat.

take the banana. a nice tasting fruit on the inside but a horrible thick skin outside. the first person to eat a banana would have spat it out as it tastesd horrible but may have scooped out the insides and ate that. over time they practised dozens of ways to get to the fruit without eating the skin - squeeze it, bash it, etc. - the way we open bananas now was just found to be the best way for humans to do it.

as tomas edison is famous for saying "We have only found 586 ways that won't work and won't have to be tried again.
Soon, we will find one that does" (Thomas Edison - Wikiquote)

 

[themadhair]

I have seen chimps eat bananas. They just squeeze the banana out. I have tried this before to no avail. I end up with mushed banana, and I hate eating banana paste.

I’m able to open bananas the chimp way without any paste. Ever since I seen it done I’ve copied the method due to not having the stringy problem. So you pretty much fail here.

Their assertion is that the world is designed (not just designed period) for humans and humans alone.

WE designed the banana. Humans designed the banana through centuries of domestication. When you ignore this, especially after it has been pointed out to you, you are being wilfully ignorant.

If you want to attack their argument attack the truth value of the premise: earth was designed for humans.

The premise is false because WE were designed by nature for the earth. The fossil record and genetics show this.

Show areas of earth's ecology which betray the implausibility of maximized earth-human interaction.

Given that 70%+ of the earth is inhabitable to humans I call bull on this.

Certain structures like the human eye seem to be extraordinarily purposed;

And yet the precursors that lead to the human eye are there to be seen in nature. Why don’t you do some research?

That is remarkable and is hard to explain the development of evolutionarily.

Not hard at all. Even Darwin had noted the precursor forms that exist in other creatures.

I accept the argument that random chance should produce some spectacular successes and some spectacular failures.

Genetic mutation is random but natural selection is not. Why don’t you try reading up on this? It would at least help prevent you saying silly things like you did here.

I am the devil's advocate.

If by ‘devil’s advocate’ you meant ‘clueless fundie’ then I agree.

I assume you understand why this is necessary?

You aren’t doing devils advocate. You are regurgitating ignorant comment after ignorant comment. Given that you have access to the internet, and the hundreds of educational resources thereon, why have you not tried to cure you ignorance?

Or should I have to resort to immature debate techniques like ad hominem?

I think it is exceptionally immature and childish to attempt discussing a subject that you seem to unwilling to research properly.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I’m able to open bananas the chimp way without any paste. Ever since I seen it done I’ve copied the method due to not having the stringy problem. So you pretty much fail here.

Fantastic for you. I am glad you don't have Reynaud's phenomena and thus don't have hands that shake constantly and poor fine neuromuscular control. Would you like a cookie? Also just because YOU can do something, does not mean that it is generally or widely available to do.

WE designed the banana. Humans designed the banana through centuries of domestication. When you ignore this, especially after it has been pointed out to you, you are being wilfully ignorant.

I don't care about the banana. I am not "ignoring" anything. I don't buy the "banana" argument because of its premise. I was fairly sure I pointed out that I do not think you can so easily dismiss the form of the argument as you do the premises (the banana is clearly a bad premise). Why was this not clear to you?

The premise is false because WE were designed by nature for the earth. The fossil record and genetics show this.

The fossil record and genetics show that we change on earth. But nothing we have can shed light one way or another on the extent of forces which shaped the formation of earth nor why factors that govern matter creation (cosmology) are what they are. Earth could be specifically designed to produce "humans" (or something approximating humans) and you would not be able to say otherwise.

Given that 70%+ of the earth is inhabitable to humans I call bull on this.

I wasn't aware inhabitable meant the same thing as harmful or likely to hinder human existence? Oceans don't just magically make human life less likely to propagate last time I checked. Humans don't need unlimited space. In fact unlimited space would probably be a bad thing since psychologically vast expanses of undifferentiated terrain does not do nice things to the human psyche. Now sure: the oceans are pretty much exactly that. And that is what you should point out. Don't just say: Oh look humans can't live everywhere. I am not aware of even a theoretical creature (as in I cannot imagine something which could be real; aka not magical) which could do that.

And yet the precursors that lead to the human eye are there to be seen in nature. Why don’t you do some research?

Decrying someone to do research who actually has and knows that this argument is false doesn't really hold water now does it? Notice here: there is a big of a discrepancy between the constricted opening eye and the lens eye. How does one explain the development of the lens then if it does not directly follow? Obviously this means that there is some sort of intermediate step which we do not see in nature today. Or would you care to claim I need to do more research?

Not hard at all. Even Darwin had noted the precursor forms that exist in other creatures.

Darwin actually admitted that the eye would be a particularly challenging (though not impossible) thing to explain.

Genetic mutation is random but natural selection is not. Why don’t you try reading up on this? It would at least help prevent you saying silly things like you did here.

Perhaps you should read up on positive selection. Since I have in regards anthropology and the accelerated rate of human change over time I can safely say I am not positing something silly. If you are prepared to posit that natural selection always attempts maximized structures (or nearly maximized), then you need to be able to explain why rabbit digestion is less efficient than many of its nearest relatives in nature. But natural selection does not do that. Allow for populations to drop down to critically low masses and suddenly anything which is not immediately beneficial is often discarded (hence much of nature has qualities which favor youth over the old). But allow for them to become large and while the rate of change and thus the amount of positive selection (aggregate will go up), the total positive change to the population does not increase since only a few very potent qualitative changes will be sufficiently beneficial to warrant spread to the whole of a population. Species can and will end up a mixed bag; some pretty lousy to some which are evidently better optimized.

If by ‘devil’s advocate’ you meant ‘clueless fundie’ then I agree.

You really do like being nasty don't you? You don't know a damn thing about me. I am not a theist; I don't believe we were designed. I am actually trying to help you better your arguments, and all you do is spout childish insults at me the whole time.

You aren’t doing devils advocate. You are regurgitating ignorant comment after ignorant comment. Given that you have access to the internet, and the hundreds of educational resources thereon, why have you not tried to cure you ignorance?

I think it is exceptionally immature and childish to attempt discussing a subject that you seem to unwilling to research properly.

If you really can't see the difference between what I am doing and someone who actually believes that the Earth was designed, then I think the shadow is cast upon you. I keep an open mind. I do not discard ideas simply because I do not like them. Even when I have more evidence for one position over another I will not discount that position unless it is improved upon in some way or shown to be impossible given some new empirical data (interpretation is key).

Tumbleweed is right to point out that Intelligent Design's proponents (in general) are not one's to argue that ET did it. But I am not defending Intelligent Design proponents, which you seem to believe I am. I am defending the form of the argument while rejecting "latent" premises which "fundies" are want to use to try and pull the wool over the eyes of the populace.

Tell me truthfully: Can you honestly state that you think it is impossible for an ET to have influenced the development of earth at any point in its entire history? If you can't, then discounting the idea entirely is rank intellectual dishonesty. Lastly, if your response to me is laden with more insults, then I shall simply ignore you from now on. It is a complete waste of my time and intellect to argue with someone who cannot distinguish between devil's advocate and fundamentalist advocate and cannot muster the human decency to avoid posting with clear disdain throughout.

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

As there is currently no evidence for Extra Terrestrial interference, especially in an "intelligent design" scenario, it is simply speculation.
I will withdraw the pseudo-scientific as long as crop circles and cattle mutilations are not brought up.

Fair enough.

&

Ah... but crop circles are so cool. I think crop ellipses are cooler, but even the circles are maximum fun. I mean complete hoaxes sure, but man they look so neat from the air.

MTF

 

[themadhair]

I am glad you don't have Reynaud's phenomena and thus don't have hands that shake constantly and poor fine neuromuscular control.

So when you claimed not to be able to open a banana the way chimps can you were being disgustingly dishonest by not mentioning this? I don’t feel any guilt when I say this, but for you to parade your own disability as a means of scoring points in a debate, particularly when that disability is been used in lieu of any argumentation to refute the points raised to you, is pretty low and speaks volumes regarding your character.

I am not "ignoring" anything.

If by ‘not’ you mean ‘certainly’ and by ‘anything’ you mean ‘pretty much the entirety of modern science and the associated methdology’ then we agree.

I was fairly sure I pointed out that I do not think you can so easily dismiss the form of the argument as you do the premises (the banana is clearly a bad premise). Why was this not clear to you?

The argument falls for exactly the same reasons whether you use or do not use a banana. This point is, sadly, lost on you.

But nothing we have can shed light one way or another on the extent of forces which shaped the formation of earth nor why factors that govern matter creation (cosmology) are what they are.

You seem to have confused cosmology, a branch of physics, with biology. The earth has been relatively stable for the past 400 million years in terms of available environments and habitats. During that period both plants and animals have changed drastically with no cosmological factors involved (with the exception of the odd extinction event). Since this period is, to a useful approximation, devoid of cosmological influence and features a rich development of species adapting to their environments it becomes clear why your attempts to introduce cosmology into a discussion about biology are a red herring. If you want to learn how the earth formed you go look it up – but that has nothing to do with life adapting to its environment.

Earth could be specifically designed to produce "humans" (or something approximating humans) and you would not be able to say otherwise.

I can indeed say otherwise. The fossil and genetic records show quite clearly the diversification of species under environmental attrition. The process is dictated by nature finding what works in terms of reproductive success, a conclusion borne out by over a century of empirical research. The problem is that you have elevated humans/humanoids to some sort of special status that every piece of relevant evidence says is unwarranted and unfounded. We can trace the human lineage back through both the fossil and genetic records to a time when we were little more than rodents. We even have the remnants of the olfactory genes in our DNA that were so useful back then (albeit since deactivated). Nature finds solutions, and humans (as well as every other creature currently alive on the planet) were simply one of those solutions among an entire myriad of other possibilities.

The analogy that I like here is to imagine nature throwing a coin into a field. You are painting a bullseye around that coin without any reason to justify doing so.

I wasn't aware inhabitable ….which could do that.

You really are determined to miss the point aren’t you? Do you see the sillyness involved in claiming the earth was made for humans when so little of that earth is habitable to humans?

This gets even worse for the fine tuning argument when universal scales are taken into account.

Decrying someone to do research who actually has and knows that this argument is false doesn't really hold water now does it?

Had you do the research you would know that all the precursors required in the evolution of the human eye currently exist in nature. Had you done the research you would know that each precursor stage provides a definite selective advantage over the previous precursor stage. Had you done the research you would know that each step in this process can be accomplished with genetic copying errors (duplication/FSM/etc.) that we observe in every new generation. Had you done this research, and noted that natural selection does not work to any particular goal while merely selecting that which works better, you would have been able to follow the PBS demonstration.

It is also quite pathetic that you take the PBS simplified model of eye evolution, intended to explain the concept of eye evolution to public, and then complain that it wasn’t detailed enough. For that kind of detail you would need to consult the peer reviewed literature or a specialised site on the subject. You are not an idiot and you know this.
Karger Gazette No 64 > The Evolution of Eyes
http://redwood.berkeley.edu/bruno/VS212B/land-fernald.pdf

Darwin actually admitted that the eye would be a particularly challenging (though not impossible) thing to explain.

I’m well aware of the quote mine. The question is why you are unaware of Darwin’s follow up where he spends the next three pages explaining eye evolution and pointing to precursor forms found in nature? You did research after all?

Perhaps you should read up on positive selection.

Perhaps you should read up on natural selection. Your garbled incoherent rambling on it indicates some fundamental misunderstandings. Rabbits, by being smaller, faster and more agile than their direct competitors, were better able to survive. Their digestion may be crap, but speed is much more useful than good digestion for a rabbit in terms of not getting eaten - hence why speed was selected over good digestion. You should note that these ‘lousy’ features show evolution over design. Humans can choke easily due to the proximity of the windpipe to the food pipe for example. We have a blind spot in our eye (and there are creatures in nature that do not have this blind spot). These are features which show the trial and error nature of evolution, while comprehensively casting doubt on design.

You really do like being nasty don't you?

Sometimes the truth hurts.

I am actually trying to help you better your arguments,

Really? It looks to me like you are spouting ignorance regarding a subject you refuse to properly research. How exactly does your propagation of ignorance help me make better arguments?

Let me be blunt here. You practically quote mined Darwin as noted above. How does that level of dishonesty/ignorance help anyone form better arguments?

If you really can't see the difference between what I am doing and someone who actually believes that the Earth was designed, then I think the shadow is cast upon you.

Maybe you should try not using their arguments? If you want to present the idea that the earth was designed for humans as ‘devil’s advocate’ you are free to do. That is simply presenting the same arguments the ID/creationism theology use. Just because you claim to be ‘devil’s advocate’ does not absolve you from being called out for using crap argumentation.

I keep an open mind. I do not discard ideas simply because I do not like them.

Claiming to be keeping an open mind, while utterly rejecting an entire cavalcade of relevant evidence, seems a bit ironic to me. Oh that’s right, you are only ‘devils advocating’.

Can you honestly state that you think it is impossible for an ET to have influenced the development of earth at any point in its entire history?

No. I also cannot say that it was impossible that a t-rex gave birth to a blue donkey that swallowed all the ingredients for making a bomb that exploded and killed off the t-rexs either. With no evidence the claim gets dismissed until the proposer produces evidence. Feel free to postulate anything you want mate. With absolutely no evidence to support your proposition I think you can expect a little mockery for thinking that it gives you a basis for debauchering science.

For someone who seems to be eager to distance themselves from the ID/creationism movement you appear to be on the same level as them in terms of evidentiary support, level of research done, ignorance of the topic, etc.

It is a complete waste of my time and intellect to argue with someone who cannot distinguish between devil's advocate and fundamentalist advocate and cannot muster the human decency to avoid posting with clear disdain throughout.

Given that you seem to think that your ignorance on science gives you the right the misrepresent well-established evidentiary-supported scientific propositions without being called on your bs I have to question this ‘intellect’.
And to be frank, some of the argumentation you have employed really are at the same level of fundamentalist logic. Good luck trying to pretend otherwise with you ‘devils advocate’.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm bumping this thread since this online debate between Ray Comfort and Eugenie Scott just started. Just one response and Scott destroys Comfort's first essay, pointing out his dishonesty (Comfort's version of Origin' omits 4 chapters of Darwin's book, the chapters that deal with biogeography, classification, morphology, and embryology- some of Darwin's most convincing chapters oddly enough), Comfort's straw men and his utter lack of basic biological knowledge.
Exclusive: Ray Comfort Defends His Creationist Edition of 'On the Origin of Species' - God & Country (usnews.com)
How Creationist 'Origin' Distorts Darwin - God & Country (usnews.com)

 

[tumbleweed41]

More Creationist dishonesty....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/91516-evolutions-hall-shame.html

 

[Harshtotem]

Most Creationists rely on the reveled revelations of the Bible, and a literal interpretation of the OT in particular. As a former Christian I was also taught the inerrancy of the Bible.

I was also taught as a Christian not to bear false witness, that is, to lie, use deceit, or mislead is wrong.
However, the instances where leading Creations do deceive are numerous, and show the dishonesty many Creationists will stoop to in order to persuade those ignorant of science that Evolution and the ToE are wrong.​

Kent Hovind claimed of the Vollosovitch mammoth findings, "One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862."​

When in fact the truth is,

"Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said." Karen E. Bartelt​

Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis tells us that, "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal."
Duane Gish who has a doctorate in biochemistry has said the same thing​

While the truth is, it is not true nor is it even close to being true. Human lysozyme is identical to chimpanzee lysozyme thus elementary logic tells us it not possible for another lysozyme to be closer. In reality, chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme in 51 out of 130 positions.​

These are leading men in the Creationist debate, yet they rely on lies and half truths to try to "prove" Creationism.​

Is this dishonesty approved by other Christians?​

Info​

​

​

How about some good old logics huh
Creation is all we see happening now not one title of Evolution- i think the theory is more about lies than even half-truths- it shows distrust in the most noble of our attributes- gut feeling- my gut feeling tells me humans did not evolute

thank you

 

[Sunstone]

How about some good old logics huh
Creation is all we see happening now not one title of Evolution- i think the theory is more about lies than even half-truths- it shows distrust in the most noble of our attributes- gut feeling- my gut feeling tells me humans did not evolute

thank you

Your gut feeling tells you humans did not evolve? Are you absolutely certain that wasn't mere gas?

 

[Harshtotem]

a matter of linquistics and semantics- which i will agree does happen- if i offend you I apologise

 

[McBell]

a matter of linquistics and semantics- which i will agree does happen- if i offend you I apologise

More like a matter of willful ignorance.
But you are not the only one here on RF proud of it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

How about some good old logics huh
Creation is all we see happening now not one title of Evolution- i think the theory is more about lies than even half-truths- it shows distrust in the most noble of our attributes- gut feeling- my gut feeling tells me humans did not evolute

thank you

Scientific evidence tells me you need a Rolaids.

 

[rusra02]

We use photographs these days for embyo's so that is irrelevant, the brontosaurus claim is total ****** and why are people still talking about Piltdown man when we have dozens of genuine hominid species in fossil form??

You asked for examples of fraud. You got them. Here's another:

A fly suspended in a chunk of amber, or fossilized tree sap, was long revered in scientific circles as a perfectly preserved specimen from 38 million years ago. However, New Scientist magazine reported that this prized specimen has actually turned out to be “an entomological crime on a par with the Piltdown hoax.” It seems that at least 140 years ago, some con artist actually sliced open the piece of amber, made a hollow in one of the halves, and placed a common latrine fly inside. This “fossil” was sold to England’s Natural History Museum back in 1922 and has since been examined by top scientists, even being mentioned in a book on fossils as recently as 1992.

There are many others.

The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins (a rabid evolutionist), on page 116 comments on the amount of information stored in a single cell: “There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas.”

However, I rest assured you will ridicule, minimize, and try to vainly explain away all that doesn't fit with your world view. Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, faced with the evidence of intelligence stored in a single cell, then defy both fact and logic by assuring us these happened completely by chance (even though he posits they may have been visited to earth by alien life forms in the distant past.)​

 

[Tristesse]

You asked for examples of fraud. You got them. Here's another:

A fly suspended in a chunk of amber, or fossilized tree sap, was long revered in scientific circles as a perfectly preserved specimen from 38 million years ago. However, New Scientist magazine reported that this prized specimen has actually turned out to be “an entomological crime on a par with the Piltdown hoax.” It seems that at least 140 years ago, some con artist actually sliced open the piece of amber, made a hollow in one of the halves, and placed a common latrine fly inside. This “fossil” was sold to England’s Natural History Museum back in 1922 and has since been examined by top scientists, even being mentioned in a book on fossils as recently as 1992.

There are many others.

The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins (a rabid evolutionist), on page 116 comments on the amount of information stored in a single cell: “There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas.”

However, I rest assured you will ridicule, minimize, and try to vainly explain away all that doesn't fit with your world view. Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, faced with the evidence of intelligence stored in a single cell, then defy both fact and logic by assuring us these happened completely by chance (even though he posits they may have been visited to earth by alien life forms in the distant past.)​

Who said "it happened by chance?" And fossil evidence is probably the weakest evidence for the fact of evolution. The fact that something can be complex is not an explanation of it's origins. There are all kinds of things that are complex that also occur naturally. In fact, some of the most complex things are naturally occurring phenomena.

 

[rusra02]

Who said "it happened by chance?" And fossil evidence is probably the weakest evidence for the fact of evolution. The fact that something can be complex is not an explanation of it's origins. There are all kinds of things that are complex that also occur naturally. In fact, some of the most complex things are naturally occurring phenomena.

"fact of evolution?" Sorry, if I found a single Encyclopædia Britannica laying around I would not conclude it is a 'naturally occurring phenomena'. A naturally occurring phenomena? What is that anyway? Does that mean it just occurred by chance?
It takes real credulity to believe in evolution.

 

[McBell]

It takes real credulity to believe in evolution.

No it doesn't.

But then, what you spout off about is not evolution.
Though i do say that you are really good at parroting whomever created this particular strawman for you.

If sometime you want to actually address evolution, I strongly suggest you learn what evolution actually is first.
Just a suggestion.

Just know that you look like a fool setting up and knocking down strawmen.
Your god must be proud.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It takes real credulity to believe in evolution.

I can understand why you would think this. As a creationist, you are on expert on credulity (Faith in the absence of evidence).
But what you lack is actual knowledge of evolutionary biology.
The question is, is that intentional ignorance, or simply lack of education?

 

[McBell]

The question is, is that intentional ignorance, or simply lack of education?

*bites own tongue*



*really hard*

 

[2nd mouse]

Boy there sure are alot of hostile evolutionists. I have a question not yet posted in this thread.

I understand evolution to be, in general, the incremental change or progression of an organism over time. Evolutionists argue that the reason we do not see obvious examples of these changes is because the change takes place in such minute almost imperceptible increments down on the cellular level.

My question is, what is the evolutionists explanation of the well documented and discussed concept of irreducable complexity on the sub-cellular level ?

And please do not ask for proof of the documents or evidence of the discussions. Intellectually honest people know it is a factual proven science. Google it

Darwin from his 1859 book Origin of Species - "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"